Madras High Court
Ganesan vs The State on 5 July, 2022
Crl. O.P. No. 2190 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 5/7/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl. O.P. No.2190 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.973 and 976 of 2022
1. Ganesan
2. Manikandan
3. Nathiya
4. Rajamani ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State
rep. By The Inspector of Police
Ethappur Police Station
Salem District.
2. Ranjith Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
call for the records relating to C.C.No.269 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur and quash the same as illegal.
Page No:1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 2190 of 2022
For Petitioner ... Mr.C.Munuraj
For Respondents ... Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.1
No appearance for R.2
------
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.269 of
2021, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur, for the
offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.C.Munuraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Leonard
Arul Joseph Selvam learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first
respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that the Investigation Officer has not followed the procedure as
contemplated in law, viz., there was a delay in filing the First Information
Report and counter case was also filed and charge sheeted.
Page No:2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 2190 of 2022
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly canvassed
on the factual aspects. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire prosecution
has to be quashed. It is to be noted that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 145 in Nathilal and
others V. State of U.P. and another, it is held that the same learned Judge
must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of
evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments and reserve it for
judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and after
recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment
in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter, dispose of the matters by
two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the
evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross
case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is
argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the
evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being
influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case.
But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one
after the other, which is being the settled position of law.
Page No:3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. O.P. No. 2190 of 2022
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
mvs.
5. In such a view of the matter, trial Court shall conduct trial, as per the
guidelines set out in the case of Nathilal and others V. State of U.P. and
another by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
5/7/2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
mvs.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur
2. TheInspector of Police
Ethappur Police Station
Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.
Crl. O.P. No.2190 of 2022
Page No:4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
